The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.

To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”

Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.

The amendments to URAP 23B incorporate language from the Court’s Revised Order Pertaining to Rule 23B, dated September 25, 2013, and makes other amendments that conform to current practice. The amendments to URAP 25, 46, 49, 50 and 51 are to conform the rules to current practice, and to clarify the standards and grounds for review of a petition for certiorari.

URAP021. Amended Rule 21 clarifies the “prisoner mailbox rule,” which will promote consistency, clarity, and certainty in inmate litigation. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules is publishing for public comment a virtually identical amendment to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

Subdivision (a). The changes are intended to clarify and simplify a party’s obligation to bring to the court’s attention those circumstances that render moot one or more issues presented for review on appeal.

Subdivision (b). The amended subdivision provides that if all parties to an appeal agree that the appeal should be dismissed, and if they stipulate to a motion for voluntary dismissal, then the appeal must be promptly dismissed. The committee felt that the proposed change would encourage prompt and efficient settlements. It also felt that dismissal of the appeal is constitutionally appropriate when the parties have agreed to a voluntary dismissal because there is no longer a justiciable case or controversy. Finally, the committee considered deleting the last sentence on fees and costs, but instead it opted to simply rework the sentence to read: “The stipulation must specify the terms of payment of costs and fees, if any.”

Subdivision (c). The proposed amendment provides an efficient way for an attorney who is unable to contact his or her client to obtain the necessary affidavit to support a motion for voluntary dismissal, while still protecting the appellant’s right to appeal. The proposal also requires the attorney to certify that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. The committee concluded that a certification from the attorney is appropriate because it safeguards the appellant’s right to an appeal, and it also avoids having the attorney reveal confidential communications with the client in an affidavit.

Subdivision (d). Finally, the committee recommends deleting the current subdivision —“[a] suggestion of mootness or motion for voluntary dismissal shall be subject to the appellate court’s approval”— for the same reasons mentioned in subdivision (b).

URAP055. Amended Rule 55 gives the court discretion to dismiss an untimely filed petition in a child welfare case, rather than requiring dismissal.

URAP024 – The proposed amendment substantially changes the organization and content of briefs. An important objective of the amendment is to present the party’s case in logical order, in measured increments, and without unnecessary repetition. The principal brief of each party must meet the same requirements.

URAP024A – The proposed amendment collects in one separate rule the briefing requirements in cross-appeals. The briefing requirements have also been clarified and simplified for ease of use.

Rule 014 Amend. Requires a party seeking review in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals of an administrative agency order to file a petition for review even if a statute describing the review describes it as an appeal. Removes provisions governed by statute or other rules.

Rule 025A New. Describes the requirement and procedures for serving briefs on the attorney general or county or municipal attorney when challenging the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. Establishes penalties for failure to do so. Allows the attorney general or county or municipal attorney to file an amicus brief when the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance is challenged. Allows the appellate court to request an amicus brief.

Summary of Amendments. The model for e-filing may change as the courts and lawyers gain experience, but the following points describe the main features of the model that we anticipate:

As in the district court and in the juvenile court, e-filing in the appellate courts will be optional when it is available, with mandatory e-filing by lawyers about 2-4 months after that. The AOC will host e-filing. There will be no third-party service providers, as there are in district court.

Self-represented parties will continue to file and serve documents by traditional means, but will be encouraged to e-mail them to the court and to the other parties.

Printed courtesy copies of some briefs will be required. Otherwise only a digital file will be filed.

As in the district court, e-filing a document has the effect of serving the document on other e-filers. Self-represented parties will have to serve and be served using traditional means, which will include email. Unlike URCP 5, service by email on a self-represented party will not require the party’s agreement.

The transcriber will electronically file the transcript, as is now the case.

The record in the review of an administrative agency will be assembled either as a digital or paper file, depending on the capability of the agency, and delivered to the appellate court.

There will be no traditional assembly of the record on appeal from the district court or juvenile court nor an electronic equivalent of assembly into a single digital file. Exhibits offered or introduced as evidence and not electronically filed in the trial court will be sent to the appellate court in the traditional way.

The digital records of the district court and juvenile court will be available to lawyers, self-represented parties and the courts through the courts’ e-filing systems. A digital file of assembled agency records will be available to lawyers, self-represented parties and the courts as a digital file. A paper file of assembled agency records will be checked out of the agency or the appellate court in the traditional manner. The court will print select portions of a digital file for a self-represented party upon request and a showing of need.

Citations in briefs and other appellate filings to the trial court record will be by the number of the document in the trial court docket and the relevant page number within the document. The citation to the trial court record will be a link to the relevant page of the document. Citations to the record of an administrative agency’s digital or paper file will be by citation to the relevant Bates number or page number of the file. The IT department of the AOC has developed an application to simplify the process of creating links, and the application will be publicly available.

A traditional signature on filings will be permitted but not required. The effective signature is the filer’s electronic signature, which is governed by Title 46, Chapter 4, Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The filer’s electronic signature carries all of the representations and consequences of a traditional signature.

StandingOrder 08. As to establishment of a pilot program to require submission of electronic courtesy briefs to the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Court of Appeals.

CJA 05-0201. Requests for enlargement of time by court recorders and transcribers. Amend.

URAP 004. Appeal as of right: when taken. Amend. Provides that the time for all parties to appeal from a judgment runs from the entry of a dispositive order if a party files a motion for relief under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered or a motion or claim for attorney fees under rule 73 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, in addition to the other motions previously listed.

URAP 028A. Appellate Mediation Office. Amend. Outlines different processes for mediation in the supreme court and the court of appeals. Provides that the denial of a mediation request does not prevent parties from engaging in private mediation or settlement negotiations. Makes technical changes.